Speed traps and warnings.

Stephen_Leak

LincolnshireYokel wrote: »

In 2007 official government figures revealed only 3% of RTA's were caused primarily by speed

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1061808/Speeding-drivers-cause-3-car-accidents-figures-reveal.html

and i saw another study a few years ago , which i havent a link for, that showed only 30% of RTA's had speed as a factor.

So it must be down to car radios then. Set up an e-petition immediately. What about the children?

PS. Hang on. Daily Wail. OK, how many drivers in accidents are on benefits?

Stephen_Leak

Lone_Ranger wrote: »

Sorry you are absolutly right, flashing headlights doesn't cause accidents, it's others drivers reactions to the flashing of headlights that do. Ask the young girl who pulled out from a junction having been "flashed" out and killed my mate on his motorbike. . Now I didn't make my first statement to cause any argument on here about what the cause of most accident are, who's been driving the longest time, etc,etc, but simply to add an opinion which I thought maybe helpful. Maybe I shouldn't have bothered.

It's always a high risk strategy on motoring forums.

Incidents like this are a result of the confusion over what a flash of headlights meant. To a private motorist it meant, "Come on". To a lorry driver, it meant "Oi, I'm here". The revision to the Highway Code has, I feel, dealt with that.

Personally, if I'm, for example, allowing another motorist right of way, I will now use a clear, even exaggerated, hand gesture. If I was waiting as a junction and someone flashed me, I would not pull out.

mikey72 wrote: »

Michael Thompson in Grimsby, wasn't so lucky in last year. Found guilty, cost him £440. "wilfully obstructing a policewoman in the execution of her duty "

Again, noted. All it needs is for someone to take matters to a "court of record".

LincolnshireYokel

Stephen_Leak wrote: »

Personally, if I'm, for example, allowing another motorist right of way, I will now use a clear, even exaggerated, hand gesture. If I was waiting as a junction and someone flashed me, I would not pull out.

Neither would I. If you are on a give way line, and you pull out and something goes wrong, legally you dont have a leg to stand on. As such it infuriates me when peopel flash you on, because they are completely and without any authorisation redefining the rights of way at the junction. If the Council wanted the rights of way to work like the flasher wanted, they would have painted the lines differently. So i refuse to go in those circumstances. Those people would be better for all just using the junction as fast as they can and getting out the way so the other person can go.

Lone_Ranger_2

Stephen_Leak wrote: »

It's always a high risk strategy on motoring forums.

Incidents like this are a result of the confusion over what a flash of headlights meant. To a private motorist it meant, "Come on". To a lorry driver, it meant "Oi, I'm here". The revision to the Highway Code has, I feel, dealt with that.

Personally, if I'm, for example, allowing another motorist right of way, I will now use a clear, even exaggerated, hand gesture. If I was waiting as a junction and someone flashed me, I would not pull out.

You are absolutly right and I agree the revised highway code will help. Unfortunatly very few drivers even have one let alone read it. That's why I feel any opportunity to educate is useful.

LincolnshireYokel

Lone_Ranger wrote: »

You are absolutly right and I agree the revised highway code will help. Unfortunatly very few drivers even have one let alone read it. That's why I feel any opportunity to educate is useful.

The highway code is so far out of date its untrue.

Look at braking and stopping distances. These were set in 1962 using a new Ford Anglia on a runway. The braking and stopping ability of a modern car with ABS and ceramic brakes makes nonsense of these published distances. Most modern cars can stop in half the distance.

Another gripe is the habit of constructing bends as sections of spirals, instead of fixed radius curves. That on its own creates the conditions for accidents, as people underestimate the rate of change of radius and understeer going round.

mishoo

He's Tony Bliar, not a copper.

malkyh

Speed traps were meant to be a deterrent rather than a cash cow. Unfortunately this highlights they are nothing but a cash cow if drivers are being charged for warning others that there is a speed trap ahead.

The other side of that is if you aren't speeding then you don't have to worry, but that would be in an ideal world.

LincolnshireYokel

malkyh wrote: »

The other side of that is if you aren't speeding then you don't have to worry, but that would be in an ideal world.

Well apart froim the fact that the Lti20/20, the hand held laser speed gun they use has been proven in court to be inaccurate and unreliable, and has been banned in the USA , but despite this fact its still allowed here. And as for the GATSO, one of the worlds living experts on tracking radar built a device that showed the two flashes given out by the device to produce the images, which have to be exactly 0.5 seconds apart, are wildly out in many cases. Again, this was expert evidence and proof, but the courts ignored it. the Cash Cow must roll on.

And who is the expert witness that the police roll out when the devices are challenged? Why, the CEO of the dutch company that makes the devices. Well, he's going to be impartial, isnt he?

Yet again the doctrine "If you're doing nothing wrong you have nothing to be afraid of" is shown again to be complete bollox, and I don't know why people keep rattling it out. We live in an institutionally corrupt police state. Equity, fairness and equality are not part of law enforcement or the justice system, and haven't been for 30 years.

kingstreet

LincolnshireYokel wrote: »

The Police HAVE to put up signs warning of the use of speed cameras by law

Do they?

I thought that was merely a by-product of the old hypothecation scheme where SCPs got a cut of the fines pre-2007?

LincolnshireYokel

ill check, im pretty sure they have to still use sinage, what they dont have to do is make the camera obvious, like they used to have to. Im pretty damn sure they have to have a sign no less than 60m from the camera.,

**EDIT**

Ah ha, they wer epart of the ACPO guidelines, and never law. And they all ignore the ACPO guidelines anyway.